ERIC EJ908207: Engaging Families in Boys & Girls Clubs: An Evaluation of the Family PLUS Pilot Initiative

2010·0.11 MB·English

by  ERIC

Engaging Families in Boys & Girls Clubs: An
Evaluation of the Family PLUS Pilot Initiative
Holly Kreider and Shobana Raghupathy
Abstract
Research has shown that engaging families through youth development and
after-school programs may benefit children. This paper extends knowledge in
this arena, describing a set of strategies for implementing family-strengthening
activities in youth development settings. The paper reports findings from a
pilot evaluation of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s Family PLUS initia-
tive. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in the form of surveys,
phone interviews, and focus groups with club leaders, parents, and youth.
Results uncover emerging family support strategies that actively link school,
club, and family; culturally tailor programming; foster long-term and family-
friendly staff; place children at the center of family programming; and pair
family-strengthening activities with other types of programming. The paper
also reports on the obstacles such strategies address as well as initial evidence
of the positive influence of such programming on parent–child relationships,
parent development, and parent–staff relationships. Implications for future re-
search are discussed.
Key Words: Boys and Girls Clubs, afterschool, youth development, engage-
ment, involvement, families, evaluation, family, PLUS, initiative, pilot, staff,
programs, out-of-school time, after-school, relationships, activities
Introduction
Four decades of research contribute to our understanding of family engage-
ment in schooling and its benefits for children (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
The School Community Journal, 2010, Vol. 20, No. 2 9
THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL
However, much less is known about engaging and supporting families in youth
development contexts, such as the strategies by which organizations engage
families and the benefits it may confer. Yet youth development and after-school
programs are increasingly prevalent contexts in which children and youth de-
velop. Over 6.5 million of the nation’s children and youth are in after-school
programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2004), and nearly a million school-age chil-
dren participate in structured after-school programs and activities under the
federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers program (Naftzger, Kauf-
man, Margolin, & Ali, 2006). Below, we examine family strengthening and
engagement in this increasingly prevalent developmental context and identify
promising strategies for increasing such engagement.
The nascent body of evidence that does exist on engaging families through
youth development and after-school programs suggests that such efforts
can benefit children and youth. Research and evaluation studies show that
family engagement after school leads to increased family involvement in chil-
dren’s education and school, better academic performance among children,
improved implementation and outcomes for after-school programs, and im-
proved relationships between parents and schools (Bennett, 2004; Horowitz &
Bronte-Tinkew, 2007; Kakli, Kreider, Little, Buck, & Coffey, 2006). Programs
with a family component delivered through Boys & Girls Clubs of Ameri-
ca (BGCA) show equally promising results (James & Partee, n.d.; St. Pierre,
Mark, Kaltreider, & Aiken, 1997). Family strengthening and engagement after
school also improves relationships between parents and children—increasing
parent–child closeness and trust, reducing conflict, and promoting greater
understanding and involvement in children’s schoolwork (Harris & Wimer,
2004; Intercultural Center for Research in Education, 2005; Massachusetts
2020, 2004).
Yet families and programs face numerous challenges to implementing family
strengthening and engagement efforts. Parents’ work schedules and time con-
straints, transportation and child care needs, family culture and language, and
residence outside of the neighborhood create obstacles to family engagement
(Debord, Martin, & Mallilo, 1996; Weiss & Brigham, 2003). Inadequate staff-
ing and funding as well as negative staff attitudes towards families or an overall
unwelcoming atmosphere prevent some programs from effectively attracting
families (Intercultural Center for Research in Education, 2005; James & Par-
tee, n.d.; Robinson & Fenwick, 2007; Weiss & Brigham, 2003).
Research has begun to map out strategies that after-school and youth de-
velopment programs use to engage families, including supporting families,
communicating and building trust, hiring and developing a family-focused
staff, and building linkages across individuals and organizations (Kakli et al.,
10
ENGAGING FAMILIES AFTER SCHOOL
2006). This paper confirms and extends knowledge in this field with findings
from a pilot evaluation of BGCA’s Family PLUS (Parents Leading, Uniting,
Serving) initiative. The evaluation reveals promising strategies for implement-
ing family strengthening activities in clubs across the U.S., how these strategies
help overcome programmatic obstacles, and how such efforts may positively
influence relationships between parents and children.
Method
In partnership with the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and after a year of
careful planning with a committee of national advisors, BGCA launched Fam-
ily PLUS in 2006, representing a major initiative to strengthen families. This
revised family-strengthening initiative and strategy built off of earlier success
and identified five key components of family strengthening on which to focus:
outreach strategies, father/male involvement, economic opportunity, kinship
care, and the FAN Club (an evidence-based family support program).
With the goal of integrating Family PLUS into clubs nationwide over five
years, the initiative has given seed grants to several dozen clubs since 2006
through a grant application and review process. BGCA provides these clubs
with implementation support through grant funds, a guidebook, a Family
PLUS web site, a National Family Support Symposium, site-based training,
and ongoing technical assistance. The aim of these supports is to increase fam-
ily strengthening activities within clubs and, ultimately, to positively impact a
sense of family togetherness among club youth and their families.
This paper presents select findings from a pilot evaluation of the first two
years of Family PLUS implementation (2006-2007). Specifically, Sociometrics
conducted a mixed method evaluation of the capacity building, implementa-
tion, and initial outcomes of the Family PLUS initiative. Evaluation measures
included a 2007 symposium participant exit survey and follow-up survey six
weeks later (n = 102 and 78, respectively), surveys and interviews with leaders
from Boys & Girls Clubs with Family PLUS grants (n = 29 and 21, respective-
ly), a parent/caregiver survey (n = 175), two parent/caregiver focus groups (n =
4 each), two youth focus groups (one group with 9–12 year olds and another
with 13–18 year olds, n = 8 and 7, respectively), one club site visit, and review
of quarterly reports from clubs with Family PLUS funding.
The club chosen for a site visit during this first phase of the evaluation was
selected based on its receipt of Family PLUS grant funding, its history as a well-
established club, and the depth and range of its family engagement activities.
Specifically, the selected club has a unique approach to engaging families, re-
quiring a minimum number of family volunteer hours and meeting attendance
11
THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL
for each child enrolled in the club, assuring high levels of parental presence and
engagement in the club. The youth focus groups were conducted during this
site visit with youth recruited by request of club staff and with selection criteria
consisting only of age parameters mentioned above, youth interest, and pa-
rental consent. Parent/caregiver focus groups were conducted both during the
site visit as well as during a national family support symposium, with group
participants recruited by evaluators and club staff based on their interest and
familial ties to one or more children currently enrolled in a club. Finally, all
leaders of clubs with Family PLUS grants during 2006 and 2007 were invited
to participate in the club leader survey and to help gather completed surveys
from 10 parents at their club. A random sample of these club leaders were also
contacted by phone for follow-up interviews.
This paper draws primarily from qualitative data from interviews and focus
groups and highlights evaluation findings related to overarching strategies used
by clubs to deliver family-strengthening programming, common barriers to
such programming, and resultant parent–child outcomes.
Results
Qualitative and quantitative data from the pilot evaluation of Family PLUS
revealed a number of implementation strategies for strengthening families in
the club context that were both innovative and addressed common challenges
faced in working with families. Findings from multiple data sources also begin
to suggest the positive outcomes of family strengthening activities for children,
families, and clubs.
Family Engagement Implementation Strategies
Through the initial evaluation, several promising strategies for implementing
family strengthening and engagement activities were uncovered that informed
the design and delivery of Family PLUS programming and worked to over-
come common challenges faced by clubs. The Family PLUS activities whose
design and delivery was facilitated through these strategies ranged from social
activities such as family bingo night, movie night, Thanksgiving and Christ-
mas dinners, and parent social nights; to courses and workshops focused on
parenting, adult education, and enrichment (e.g., ESL, computer, nutritional
cooking, family involvement in education); to other services for children and
families, such as dental services, tax preparation, child developmental screen-
ing, and holiday gift/food drives. These categories of activities held true across
club leader, parent, and youth reports. According to the parent/caregiver sur-
vey, the vast majority of parents participated in one or more Family PLUS
12
ENGAGING FAMILIES AFTER SCHOOL
events over the six months prior to the survey (1 event = 18%, 2–3 events =
39%; 4–5 events = 13%, and 6 or more events = 18%).
The most common barriers to implementing these activities—as reported
in the symposium exit and follow-up surveys and through the club leader sur-
veys and interviews—included limited amounts of funding (reported by 52%
of symposium attendees), limited staffing (reported by 34%), and need for
staff training (28%), as well as outreach barriers. Other barriers mentioned
were lack of interest from the communities and families themselves, local pref-
erences for programming that didn’t focus on families, language barriers in
predominantly Latino communities, and lack of support from schools.
Strategies for delivering the above-mentioned activities and overcoming im-
plementation challenges included actively linking schools, clubs, and families;
culturally tailoring programming; designating long-term staff with a family-
friendly mindset; shifting staff perspectives through shared responsibilities; and
pairing family-focused efforts with other targeted programming for outreach
and sustainability, as described below.
Linking Schools, Clubs, and Families
Club leaders spoke of linking families, schools, and clubs, which in turn
helped address outreach and funding challenges. Club leaders viewed them-
selves as experts in forming positive relationships with families and youth and
collaborating with outside agencies. But schools bring added access to new
parents through groups like the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). One club
brought together the best of both worlds to better serve youth by hosting fam-
ily social nights in a middle school, piggybacking off of school PTA meetings.
This encouraged PTA parents1 to enroll their children in the club and club par-
ents to get involved in the PTA. Eventually, other parents with children in the
school were also drawn in for these double meetings.
Other clubs worked directly with school staff around children’s school
readiness and behavioral issues; with youth and families via homework help
and guidance on parent involvement; and with school leadership to establish
shared space and objectives. For example, one urban club housed a charter
high school, providing the club with substantial unrestricted revenue each year
through rental income. The club’s parents and youth enjoyed first priority for
coveted school enrollment. Families enjoyed club staff’s motivational influence
on and information about children’s school performance. Parents, school staff,
and club staff also benefited from mutual expectations about parent volunteer-
ing (which was required at both the club and the school).
13
THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL
Tailoring Programming to the Local Community and Cultural
Background of Families
In surveys and interviews, club leaders cited language and cultural barriers
to engaging families in their family support program. For example, cultur-
al barriers were among the top four barriers cited by symposium attendees.
Reaching out to Latino families and undocumented families, in particular,
was a repeated theme in interview questions about implementation challenges.
For example, conducting background checks to allow undocumented family
members to volunteer is a challenge, especially for clubs with a volunteering
requirement. To increase outreach to and engagement of Latino and undocu-
mented families, clubs leaders identified community groups who could “adopt
a family” to serve their required volunteer time, used alternative background
check services that require only a name and address (rather than a social secu-
rity number), and hired staff who shared cultural and linguistic backgrounds
with targeted families.
Likewise, for some clubs, issues of locality and socioeconomic status pre-
sented challenges for family programming, for example in designing events
that appeal to both affluent and low-income families in a community or adapt-
ing workshops for use in suburban versus more urban sites. One club bridged
the economic divide in its community by offering food-centered family social
nights, international celebrations, and events that showcased the good work of
children, thereby appealing to all families.
Designating a Long-Term Staff Person with a Family Support Mindset
Staffing and funding problems were frequently cited as barriers to sustained
family engagement activities. Several club leaders spoke of a prior grant that
funded a designated person with primary responsibility for family support
programming, but the position disappeared when the funding ended. Others
found different types of funding to support the stability of such a position in
combination with other roles, such as preschool director or individual services
provider. Persons in such positions also sometimes continued to informally
function in a parent liaison capacity even after their job description no longer
formally called for it. Club leaders also spoke about the importance of having
a family support coordinator with a mindset and passion for family inclusion,
which they sometimes found in professionals with a social work background.
In the absence of a long-term designated staff person, clubs also spread respon-
sibility for family programming across staff and/or through the use of parent
volunteers and parent advisory committees.
14
ENGAGING FAMILIES AFTER SCHOOL
Placing Children at the Center of Programming
According to club leader interviews, many staff members place youth at
the center of their work and find it hard to include families for fear of detract-
ing from their core value of focusing on children and youth. One club leader
explained how they kept youth at the center of family programming by show-
casing youth talent and letting parents be a part of that. Many others hosted
periodic family nights as a social activity geared toward all family members
rather than just adult caregivers. Other club leaders focused directly on shifting
staff perspectives by discussing and modeling the purpose, concept, and impor-
tance of Family PLUS. Beyond this, club leaders also spread the responsibility
and ownership of family programming across staff to increase their apprecia-
tion of families. For example, at one club staff members took turns hosting a
monthly family night at the club, giving each staff member an opportunity for
closer relationships with families.
Pairing Family Support Activities With Other Types of Programming
Pairing family support activities with other types of programming, namely
preschool and prevention programs, also helped overcome funding and out-
reach issues. As an example, consider one club in which family outreach really
took off with a free preschool program for low-income families. The preschool
program engaged parents as volunteers and had regular communication with
families during drop off and pick up. Building off of this success, the club
now offers activities and services for preschool families and beyond includ-
ing educational and health counseling and a teen parent support group. The
club’s preschool leader noted that teaching young children successfully in the
preschool classroom requires that parents support similar behaviors at home.
The common mindset in early childhood education of educating the “whole”
child and viewing the child as part of the broader family system may also make
club-based preschool programs an ideal entry point for family support pro-
gramming. Developmentally, a strong family component in the early years may
prime both parents and children for family support and involvement moving
forward (Kreider, 2001). Similarly, other clubs mentioned prevention pro-
grams on which their family support work was built.
Benefits
Albeit preliminary, positive outcomes were a persistent finding across par-
ent, youth, and club leader reports, via both quantitative and qualitative data.
Family togetherness, and especially parent–child relationships, were improved
both in terms of the time spent with one another and the quality of that time.
In addition, parents reported benefiting directly as individuals in their role as
15
THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL
parents and beyond as a result of Family PLUS programming, and club leaders
reported multiple improvements to parent–staff relationships.
Parent–Child Relationships
The vast majority of club leaders, parents, and youth reported a positive
influence of Family PLUS on parent–child relationships, meaning the quality
and quantity of time that children and parents spent together. For example, on
the parent/caregiver survey, the combined mean rating on a scale measuring
family relations and cohesion2 (Tolan, n.d.) improved from an average of 3.18
before the grant period to 3.50 after the grant period, which was a statistically
significant result.
Interestingly, qualitative data across informants suggests processes by which
parent–child relationships are improved. For example, parents and youth de-
scribed how parental presence in a club increased parental knowledge about
their children’s talents and friendship networks, provided information on
which to base meaningful conversations with their children, and presented
opportunities for parents and children to have fun with one another and for
parents to model a strong work ethic. For example, one teenage boy talked
about his skills at playing pool and public speaking, talents his mom would
have never seen if she hadn’t volunteered at the club. Youth award ceremonies
and competitive events hosted by clubs also facilitated parental awareness and
celebration of youth talents.
Likewise, several youth agreed that their parents knew who all their friends
were because of parental presence in the club. These were not necessarily friends
who lived in their neighborhood or attended the same school but with whom
the youth spent a lot of time and clearly had close bonds. These introductions
meant that parents were more likely to approve of out-of-club visits between
friends and that youth felt their parents knew more and important things
about them—like how they interact with their friends. Note that this may be
exceptionally important given the research literature on parental monitoring in
adolescence as a predictor of positive academic and social-emotional outcomes
(Kreider & Suizzo, 2009).
Parent Development
Parents reported deriving individual benefits from Family PLUS pro-
gramming in their role as parents and beyond. First, the majority of parents
described feeling emotionally and practically supported by the clubs, for ex-
ample, recounting how club staff members helped them hang sheetrock in a
family kitchen, escorted an inebriated father to the hospital, and helped locate
housing and employment. Parents also pointed to the respect, listening, and
16
ENGAGING FAMILIES AFTER SCHOOL
kind suggestions they received from staff. As one mother put it, “It’s all about
relationships with staff.”
Several parents also described feeling assured by the safe environment in
which their children spent time. A leader from one urban club explained that
gang activity exists in the neighborhood, but the club is considered sacred
ground among all in the community and has a strong relationship with the po-
lice and sheriff’s department. Parents at this club explained that just knowing
their children were spending time in the safety of a high quality club offered
valuable peace of mind and was a powerful family support in and of itself.
Some parents reported an increased sense of economic empowerment as
well. A single mother with two school-age boys living in a small town spoke
eloquently of the importance of the economic supports her club provided,
including distribution of food, school supplies, and Christmas toys, as well as
housing referrals. Clubs also provided employment and training for parents,
for example, implementing the Youth Establishing Savings (YES) program,
which offered (among other things) financial literacy workshops to youth and
families and matching funds to incentivize financial savings.
In addition, a few parents credited clubs with fostering a sense of commu-
nity and civic engagement. Parents described volunteering in the community
as a result of their positive experiences with the club, for example helping with
a neighborhood clean-up that they heard about through the club. They also
looked out for other people’s children in the neighborhood and experienced a
strong network of other parents with whom they could talk and feel a sense of
community. One single mother explained the value of having such adult con-
nections in the context of her life at home with three school-age boys and no
adults other than herself. For the handful of parents who presented at the Na-
tional Family Support Symposium, the connections were even more cherished.
As one mom explained, she was “…isolated as a parent, so it is great to come
here.” Youth see and feel this, too. As one 12th grade boy explained, “our par-
ents have each other and the staff. I like being able to share my mom with the
other parents.”
Parent–Staff Relationships
According to club leaders, Family PLUS programming also resulted in posi-
tive relationships between parents and club staff, and equally important, less
negative relationships as evidenced by fewer parental complaints. These positive
relationships translated into more joint problem-solving around child behavior
issues, word-of-mouth marketing by satisfied parents (a benefit not examined
by those who study family engagement in public schooling), and smoothly run
programs as assisted by a dedicated parent volunteer workforce. At the club in
which we conducted a site visit, even the younger children (ages 9–12 years)
17
THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL
recognized the power of families’ presence in the club to help children. Chil-
dren in a focus group discussed two “out-of-control” boys who underwent a
remarkable transformation during their tenure at the club, aided by the club’s
strict adherence to rules and discipline and by strong communication between
parents and staff, as any form of misbehavior was reported to parents immedi-
ately. As one club leader elaborated, problem-solving can occur across parent,
child, and staff member because parents are often present in the building as
volunteers, so it doesn’t feel like a staff member is dumping on a parent at pick
up time, but rather having a timely conversation with both the parent and
child about disciplinary issues/concerns.
Discussion
Preliminary findings from an evaluation of the first two years of BGCA’s
Family PLUS initiative reveal emerging strategies for implementing family-
strengthening activities by actively linking school, club, and family; culturally
tailoring programming; placing children at the center of programming; and
pairing family-focused efforts with other targeted programming. Such strate-
gies partially address common challenges in working with families in youth
development settings, including outreach, staff buy-in, and sustainability.
Findings also suggest that these Family PLUS programming strategies may
positively influence parent–child relationships, adult development, and parent–
staff relationships. Central theories in the family engagement literature may
help explain how the above-mentioned strategies promote these outcomes.
Specifically, improved parent–child relationships may be facilitated by parental
presence in and communication across youth settings, which affords parents
knowledge of children across youth contexts. Research and practice increasingly
demonstrate that such intentional linkages across youth contexts (e.g., family,
youth development, school, informal learning institutions, and health and so-
cial services) may promote positive academic and social outcomes, especially
for the most at-risk youth—a concept recently described as complementary
learning (Weiss, Coffman, Post, Bouffard, & Little, 2005).
Likewise, creating meaningful and culturally relevant programming con-
veys respect and heeds parents’ priorities, which may in turn encourage parents
to take advantage of crucial family support services, realize personal goals, and
contribute their own talents to the club (Reyes, Scribner, & Scribner, 1999;
Valdés, 1996). Also, hiring and fostering family-friendly staff may engender
trust and the exchange of information, which in turn improves parent–staff re-
lationships and joint support of children. Such trust is conducive to productive
conversations between parents and educators and is a manifestation of strong
18